What you seem unlikely to read elsewhere - yesterday's Starmer - von der Leyen meeting was successful, and had the right outcome - a commitment to regular ongoing summits, and joint working to prepare them.

No flounces, no talk of special deals. Normality theguardian.com/politics/2024/… To those complaining about the UK's lack of detail - a lazy, uninformed complaint. The EU doesn't (yet) have a mandate, the UK doesn't (yet) need to have all the asks. Both need to come in time. That will be the test of the next few months, now was not the time. As was agreed.

Three days in Brussels mostly talking UK-EU relations after the elections with various folk on all sides, but also hard to get away from US-EU-China talk, or concerns about the direction of travel for the EU. So what were my top 10 findings? Settle down for a thread 🧵 1 - though far from top priority, the EU will happily engage with the UK. There's interest in what a new government will do. But they also expect their own interests - recently youth mobility, and fishing - to be taken seriously. Where there's overlap - security - expect progress

There are some very good reasons not to talk about Brexit in the election.

It happened. It was traumatic. It didn't go very well. It isn't easily changed.

Rejoiners tend to forget the 2nd and 4th, Brexiters the 3rd.

theguardian.com/politics/artic… Like it or not, we are stuck for a while in the technocratic realities of international relations when it comes to UK-EU relations. I'd expect there to be a time when that changes, when there's a rejuvenated campaign for rejoining, but not for a while.

Today's big trade news - that the EU will apply additional tariffs of around 25% on Chinese made Electric Vehicles, on the basis that they have benefitted from illegal subsidies. This comes as a result of furious lobbying for higher or lower figures. ft.com/content/0545ed… The US has imposed higher Chinese EV tariffs, without specific justification, and it was suggested 50% was needed in the EU to remove cost advantage. But some or more of this is natural competitive advantage from far earlier investment. The EU was looking as ever for a balance.

In we go... and just a few pages in, the relief is that there are none of the obvious errors than so often undermine UK accounts of Brexit - at likely cost to the sanity of @ShippersUnbound he appears on top of the subject...

Next UK negotiator perhaps...? 10 pages in and the level of haplessness described within the UK government system with regard to negotiations in 2017 is off the scale. I know we've improved since then. But equally, I doubt enough lessons have been learnt.

Increasingly thinking that Labour is going to need some clever way to handle the EU issue otherwise there is going to be a lot of difficulty and frustration spilling into government. And judging by my inbox, affecting negotiations. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… Problem with these "we can't talk about it but we always talk about it" issues is that they don't go away, and particularly when they involve international talks with a player like the EU, you simply add levels of complexity potentially making it unmanageable.

I see we're predicted to be back in the realms today of hurrying through Parliament another Brexit change without debate just to show we haven't really learnt anything, but from the tail end of yesterday's thread here's some of what I'm expecting on Northern Ireland, plus...

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1752386822209208682

There are briefings that either / both - new EU law will no longer automatically be applied in Northern Ireland (it never was) / the UK will agree not to diverge from relevant EU law to avoid UK divergence (wouldn't necessarily remove SPS checks but will keep UK alignment).

And the morning news is a deal over Northern Ireland and Brexit. But... this statement isn't true under the Windsor Framework. Even if the UK government decide to align food and drink regulations with the EU. So is this really all settled? theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
Now under the Windsor Framework entry checks to Northern Ireland were reduced. But these are not eliminated by UK alignment. Possibly the DUP has finally decided to agree that these are not so different to those of pre-2016. But equally, be wary of false promises unravelling.

UK trade news! Canada have proved persistently tough negotiating partners for the UK, and this comes as little surprise. The existing replica of the EU agreement is presumed to hold for now, but must also raise a question on CPTPP ratification.

https://twitter.com/janycemcgregor/status/1750595580659929239

Worth noting that UK refusal to change food standards has been an issue for Canada, while UK access to dairy is an inevitable issue the other way. But still a blow to the government's trade story.

Good piece on Northern Ireland. Clearly the DUP take some blame for refusing to return to Stormont. But their position is pretty predictable, and the UK government has consistently failed in efforts to change that, digging the hole deeper as they go. politico.eu/article/no-gov… Doesn't seem like the government ever had a Plan B for the entirely predictable (and widely predicted) situation in which the DUP rejected the Windsor Framework. They were so confident that they had negotiated brilliantly (heard someone involved bragging exactly this).

To be clear because I've read this twice already today, a UK-EU SPS agreement would almost certainly NOT remove all barriers to trade in food and drink products.

It could ease some of them. But that difference between the single market and lesser arrangements will remain. Thing is, loose talk in the UK on EU deals has consequences, because when the Commission read that the UK is going to remove all food and drink barriers while staying out of the single market they think "unacceptable cherry picking / they haven't learnt anything".

Two major challenges for Europe including the UK in 2024, and two huge distractions. The issues that should but probably won't be discussed in elections... First challenge, geopolitics, where does Europe stand, who are our friends? What do we think of countries that bomb their neighbours, of others that support or facilitate that, what any more are our values? Very hard right now to see any coherent vision.

This should be a humiliation for a Secretary of State of Trade, to be associated with such shoddy research attempting to deny economic reality. That's what happens when ideology is more important than actual businesses. iea.org.uk/media/brexit-l…
Cross referencing IEA data with the German figures shows even more starkly why the Secretary of State should be so embarrassed about this shallow IEA paper.

A troubling road. So far the UK response to the emerging global subsidies war is spending a lot of money to protect some of what is already here. The EU is moving towards protectionism through regulation and investigation, the US through more subsidies.
theguardian.com/business/2023/… Meanwhile the Chinese economy stated as the big threat is also faltering, and you have to wonder where this is all leading. What is the big picture vision for the global economy which doesn't involve economic conflict which must be costly?

So, riddle-me-this on major UK infrastructure, particularly those that want to see planning reform, given that HS2 was approved by a Bill through Parliament, why could that not just override all local objections? ft.com/content/9aa0fc… Second question, what do the US and UK have in common compared to all other countries shown here, which might account for far greater costs?

"Part of leaving the EU was to have our own regulatory regime that was more suited to UK conditions" says David Jones MP. It was. But modern trade means regulations are global, or strongly influenced by the largest player. So what then? Ignore that as inconvenient?

https://twitter.com/DPhinnemore/status/1687722902899036160

That constant Brexiter doubling down, we have been right since 2016 and the only thing we got wrong was underestimating the evils of the EU. Never once changing any other view because of experience. And that is an ideology not a practical basis for government.

Right, the dull analysis on the Farage / Coutts story: Part of a trend in democracies where companies are paying more attention to values of younger consumers while politicians are more focused on the elderly. For companies, attracting younger consumers with a lifetime of spending ahead means taking seriously their values, including around gender and in tackling climate change. You can argue how serious the commitment is, but they clearly feel they have to try.

Top notch "inside the deal" reporting from @g_lanktree on UK accession to CPTPP focused on the role of Japan, and why this is more about politics than trade. A minor quibble - I'm not sure the UK will automatically say no to China accession talks... politico.eu/article/japan-… For the UK the economic impact of CPTPP is limited and the most positive element could well be controversial - more choice of goods from Asian supply chains at the expense of UK manufacturing. It doesn't do much for services, while the rules elements are dated and modest.

Apparently some other stuff has happened, but let's be honest this has been a trade and Brexit reprise week, a little reminder of glory days gone... For those coming back to trade after a break two upcoming events of interest. On the morning of June 16 an @ECIPE webinar in which I'll be discussing where next for UK trade policy with @FredrikErixon @HayteratLords and @JohnBallingall with an NZ take... ecipe.org/events/ecipe-w…

A small number of those who appear to see themselves as free trade partisans are rejecting all criticism of the Australia trade deal as being protectionist.

We've been through this multiple times before, but to repeat, trade policy needs societal consent. Perhaps it shouldn't be like this, but the natural response to trade is to like exports and dislike imports. Trade deals which reduce barriers to imports are thus often seen as problematic. Extensive experience shows however that this is to a degree overcome with good process.

Increasing chatter about the UK and the pan-Euro-Med convention on Rules of Origin. While joining won't solve an immediate issue of potential electric vehicle tariffs between UK and EU, benefits to UK and positive noises in Brussels suggest chances rising ft.com/content/465b8e… For the UK, joining PEM has two clear benefits - engagement in manufacturing supply chains, and helping control food prices. Given the salience of both issues right now, it is bound to look more attractive. Added to which it was never fully clear why it was previously rejected.